If we legalize gay marridge, who is going to pay for their tax reliefs?

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If we legalize gay marridge, who is going to pay for their tax reliefs?

Everyone. Gay marriage isn't just a morality issue, its also a practical one. Exactly what benefit does having two gay people married bring? Little to none. Exactly what benefit does having two straight people married bring? Kids(the future).

So here's the deal. We should change the law to unincentivize marriage alone, and start giving tax reliefs to marriages that have X amount of children, the more children the more tax relief. Then legalize gay marriage, then if gay people want to adopt, they are helping out society and get the exact same treatment as their counterparts who have the same amount of children. Wham bam thank you mam, equality that is also practical.

Everyone. Gay marriage isn't just a morality issue, its also a practical one. Exactly what benefit does having two gay people married bring?

It allows the couple to have their insurance shared, set up joint accounts available only to married couples, be beneficiaries for one another (or rather, not be denied the ability to be beneficiaries of life insurance), be buried next to one another, and not be denied the ability to visit one another in the hospital or consent to operations if their partner is unable to.

Never the less it is IMMORAL to not allow someone to marry the person that they love, even if it hurts your pocket book. I also seriously doubt it hurts that much, the amount of gay people is small, and gay people still adopt and add to the economy. And finally this makes no sense pertaining to people that are sterile and get married, they also do not have children, yet it is not an issue.

For society, it brings nothing, unless they decide to adopt, because all their money is just going towards themselves, and not towards the future(outiside of paying taxes, which everyone does anyways)

All of those would be solved after we fixed the practicallity issues.

It does do something for society, which is create two co-dependants; a married couple is much more stable financially than a single, or even "civil partners" who a) are at the whim of the law changing randomly and b) lack all the benefits of married couples as stated previously.

Never the less it is IMMORAL to not allow someone to marry the person that they love, even if it hurts your pocket book. I also seriously doubt it hurts that much, the amount of gay people is small, and gay people still adopt and add to the economy. And finally this makes no sense pertaining to people that are sterile and get married, they also do not have children, yet it is not an issue.

If you read through my suggestions TO FIX THESE THINGS, it would literally solve every single argument you have against what i am saying
It would make people who are sterile and married not get tax reliefs, (unless they adopted), it would also give tax reliefs to the gay people who married.

And no I'm not trolling, i believe this is a good fix, because a lot of people dislike gay marriage on the issue that they have to pay money so that they can get married.
It might not be a big proponent against legalizing gay marriage, but its at least a plan so that the practicality of it isn't ever a big issue

Not true, the majority of working couples get a benefit/no reduction from this, and furthermore this has been delt with by law too. As of 1996 (before 2 major laws were enacted HELPING married couples) 51% got a savings from filing jointly, and 44% got more taxes for filing jointly, meaning 56% BACK THEN BEFORE the extra helpings were allowed, were not harmed by this.

Not true, the majority of working couples get a benefit/no reduction from this, and furthermore this has been delt with by law too. As of 1996 (before 2 major laws were enacted HELPING married couples) 51% got a savings from filing jointly, and 44% got more taxes for filing jointly, meaning 56% BACK THEN BEFORE the extra helpings were allowed, were not harmed by this.

The majority who got tax breaks had a lower income, which (judging by the state the US is currently in), means they're probably in debt. Therefore, them getting tax breaks WOULD benefit the rest of the country, as less people in debt = a healthier economy.

Beneficial for the people under the law. Not everyone.
If what your saying is true, then you are trying to kill a bear by ripping of a bandaid. If poor people need lower tax rates, then we should be lowering thier tax rates, not letting gay people get married. Not to say we shouldn't let gay people get married, but that is not the solution to the problem

Beneficial for the people under the law. Not everyone.
If what your saying is true, then you are trying to kill a bear by ripping of a bandaid. If poor people need lower tax rates, then we should be lowering thier tax rates, not letting gay people get married. Not to say we shouldn't let gay people get married, but that is not the solution to the problem

But if gay couples marry, then the rich gay couples would be taxed more and the poor couples taxed less, as we just demonstrated. Allowing gay people to marry would be another step in more taxes for the rich, less taxes for the poor.

If what your saying is true, then you are trying to kill a bear by ripping of a bandaid

this is the first non religious argument i've seen against gay marriage. i never even stopped to think getting married only if you're two men or women would hurt the economy. if this is the case, unmarried couples should be outlawed from having children, and married couples without children should have a higher tax rate.

But if gay couples marry, then the rich gay couples would be taxed more and the poor couples taxed less, as we just demonstrated. Allowing gay people to marry would be another step in more taxes for the rich, less taxes for the poor.

...?

that is not how it works, first off if one person is rich, then the joint filling doesn't matter. And usually if one person is rich, then the other DOESN'T WORK TOO. Secondly if both are rich, the burden doesn't go up,
the burden goes up if and only if

THERE IS A LARGE DISPARITY, it does not matter how rich or poor the people are.
If your incomes are close, you get a tax benefit, if your incomes are far away, you get a tax -.
Did you not read the thing you linked?